Do you want your business to define your lifestyle or your lifestyle to define your business? - Bird Lovegod

It’s a foundational question because it addresses priority.

The answer could determine the rest of the entrepreneur’s life.

Are they willing for the business to be the most important thing in their life, for all else to revolve around it, and be defined by it, and excluded by it?

That’s a big commitment to make, a major decision. And it only really makes sense if the founders have a plan to get in, create a company, then somehow get out in an exit.

It’s a short term mentality, the willingness to prioritise the business in order to achieve some wider aim in the medium to long term.

It’s an all or nothing gamble, and most times, it doesn’t pay off.

What typically happens is the founder puts total effort in, at the expense of every other activity and relationship and their own mental and physical wellbeing, and then the business struggles along for several hard years, during which they may raise funding, which only compounds the situation.

If they’ve raised once they will almost certainly have to raise again, and again, and each time the pressure and the work increases as they entrap themselves into a situation where they have to raise more money to stay afloat, and each time as well as losing equity they increase the risk that they will be unable to raise more, at which point the company will fail.

This is a high probability outcome.

Another similar probability outcome is that the founders will raise money, realise the business is unviable, and scale down in order to increase the length of time they have to live before the money runs out.

This is another high probability outcome, if the investors even let them do it, and they will find themselves back in the same position, money running out, investors not impressed, no way to raise more, and the company fails.

Another outcome is that they scale the company successfully and are able to run it profitably.

Even in this unlikely scenario, they are still beholden to the company, and the investors, they are in effect employees.

The even less likely scenario is a meaningful exit, by that I mean an acquisition of the company by another company which provides all shareholders with a bountiful return on their investment. Maybe a one per cent probability.

In other words, starting a business where the business is allowed to define the lifestyle and indeed life of the founders is a super high risk endeavor and can cost the entrepreneur dearly, including relationships, friendships, marriages, and anything and everything else, with a 99 per cent chance of adverse outcome.

It’s such a foolish thing to do that it’s a wonder anyone would do it, but no journey is so horrible that someone won’t take it.

There’s a hype and dream machine around this choice, and in truth it can be exciting initially.

However it’s so high risk it’s almost certain to fail.

Although no one believes they will fail, and it’s sold as the normal and best way to be a startup founder. Basically, it’s a delusion, a mad dream based on the one per cent who succeeded, and they almost certainly had the head starts and advantages of being connected to the right people to make the right decisions and get the right funding from the beginning.

If you are female, or black, or a single founder, or not young, not from a high social class, and didn’t go to the right schools and Universities, and if you don’t already know the right people, and have the right family and friend connections, this way is virtually impossible to succeed in and you should almost certainly avoid attempting it.

The odds are a thousand to one. Next week I’ll explore the sane alternative.